People v. Arguello

California Court of Appeal Oct 11, 1962 No. Crim. 1835Published

Before: Coughlin

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. A writ of habeas corpus is not the appropriate legal remedy to enforce the speedy trial requirements of Penal Code section 1382, as that statute provides its own specific remedy of a motion to dismiss the prosecution.

Issues

Whether a writ of habeas corpus lies to enforce the speedy trial provisions of Penal Code section 1382.
Whether the trial court's order discharging the defendant from custody was a valid exercise of authority under the circumstances.

Disposition. reversed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The Supreme Court of this state has held that a writ of habeas corpus does not lie to enforce the provisions of this section”

“The method provided by the statute for enforcing the remedy is by motion to dismiss the prosecution.”

“It is evident that the procedure prescribed by section 1382 controls the facts at hand.”

COUGHLIN, J.

This is an appeal from an order granting a writ of habeas corpus which directed that the defendant and respondent above named, who had been indicted for

[454]

murder, be released from custody, upon the ground that he had not been given a speedy trial.

The defendant was arrested on November 9, 1961, for an alleged murder committed on that day. A complaint charging him therewith was filed in the Municipal Court of San Diego on November 13, 1961. A preliminary hearing thereon was scheduled for December 4, 1961, but, over his objection, on motion of the district attorney, was continued to December 13, 1961, and on the latter date the complaint was dismissed. In the meantime, i.e., on December 7, 1961, he had been indicted for the same offense; on December 11, 1961, was arraigned upon and entered a plea of not guilty to the charge contained in the indictment; and his trial was set for January 29, 1962. Prior to the trial date, i.e., on January 26, 1962, on motion and over his objection, a continuance was granted and the trial reset for February 26, 1962. Four days before the second trial date, i.e., on February 21, 1962, a further continuance was granted, on motion and over his objection, and his trial reset for March 26, 1962. Thereafter he filed the instant petition for a writ of habeas corpus, which was heard and granted on March 9, 1962.

On January 25, 1962, and February 20, 1962, respectively being the day before the first and second motions for a continuance were heard, the defendant’s attorney was advised by telephone that the motion in question would be made the following day. The defendant and his attorney appeared at the time the motions were heard; made no requests for a continuance of the hearings; participated therein; and opposed the motions. At each hearing evidence was adduced which was legally sufficient to support a finding that a material witness for the People was seriously ill and would be unable to attend upon the dates set for the trial. It is not necessary that we detail the subject evidence.

(Fomco, Inc.

Joe Maggio, Inc.,

55 Cal.2d 162, 164 [10 Cal.Rptr. 462, 358 P.2d 918] ;

People v. Arguello

AI Brief

COUGHLIN, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief